Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:26:50 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson 
<aranders@netusa1.net> wrote:

> ja pagh:
> >[...]
> >tIqwIjvaD qaDuQmoH - "I cause my heart to stab you"
> 
> This one is not at all obvious.  It seems to me that it has a much stronger
> chance of meaning of "I cause you to stab for the benefit of my heart."

When I think about the way Okrand has used {-moH} on transitive 
verbs, this fits the pattern. The subject of verb+moH is the 
agent of causation. The indirect object is the agent of the 
root verb's action and the direct object is the direct object of 
the root verb's action.

The interpretation you are now giving matches the one most of us 
had before seeing Okrand's one example and we generally 
abandoned that interpretation and took on the newer one. 
Meanwhile, you were one of the first people saying that the new 
way made sense.

I think this reads as "I cause my heart to stab you." I also 
happen to think that is gibberish, but that is the way I'd sort 
out the subject, object, causative agent, etc.
 
> Maybe something with {raD} "force, compel" would work here.
> 
> DuDuQ tIqwIj 'e' vIraD - "I compel my heart to stab you."

This produces an equally gibberish, but consistent meaning.
 
> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI' 'utlh